terradrivefandomcom-20200214-history
TerraDrive Universe:Consensus
Much like Wikipedia, the TerraDrive Universe works by building . Consensus is an inherent part of the wiki process. The basic process works like this: someone makes an edit to a page, and then everyone who reads the page makes a decision to either leave the page as it is or change it. Over time, every edit that remains on a page, in a sense, has the unanimous approval of the community (or at least everyone who has looked at the page). "Silence equals consent" is the ultimate measure of consensus — somebody makes an edit and nobody objects or changes it. Most of the time, consensus is reached as a natural product of the editing process. When there are disagreements, they are resolved through polite discussion and on , in an attempt to develop a view which everybody can agree upon. If we find that a particular consensus happens often, we write it down as a guideline, to save people the time having to discuss the same principles over and over. In the rare situations where consensus is hard to find, the dispute resolution processes provide several other ways agreed by the community, to involve independent editors and more experienced help in the discussion, and to address the problems which prevent a consensus from arising. When consensus is referred to in TerraDrive Universe discussion, it always means 'within the framework of established policy and practice'. Even a majority of a limited group of editors will almost never outweigh community consensus on a wider scale, as documented within policies. __TOC__ Reasonable consensus-building Note that consensus can only work among reasonable developers who make a good faith effort to work together to accurately and appropriately describe the different views/visions on the subject (e.g. insisting on insertion of an insignificant factoid into an article in opposition to many other editors is a violation of consensus). It is difficult to specify exactly what constitutes a reasonable or rational position. Good developers acknowledge that opinions opposed to their own may be reasonable. However, stubborn insistence on a view/vision, with refusal to consider other viewpoints in good faith, is not justified under the TerraDrive Universe's consensus practice. (Note that the consensus can change.) Even if an editor's contributions appear to be mediocre, keep in mind that their edits may have been made in good faith, out of a genuine desire to improve the article. Editors must, in almost all situations, assume good faith and must always remain civil. Consensus can change Once established, consensus is not immutable. It is reasonable, and sometimes necessary, for the community to change its mind. A small group of editors can reach a consensual decision about an article, but when the article gains wider attention, members of the larger community of interest may then disagree, thus changing the consensus. The original group should not block further change on grounds that they already have made a decision. This does not mean that the TerraDrive Universe ignores precedent; for example, editors should not continuously tag an article for deletion until it reaches their preferred outcome. However, an issue that was decided in the past can always be discussed again, especially if there is new information to discuss. An editor who thinks that a consensual decision is outdated may ask about it on the relevant talk page or at TDU:Broadcast to see whether other editors agree. No one editor can unilaterally declare that consensus has changed. The TerraDrive Universe is ever-changing, because new people visit every day, and through new information and new ideas, we may gain insights we did not have previously. It is important that there is a way to challenge past decisions, however these decisions were reached. Decisions should therefore practically never be "binding" in the sense that the decision cannot be taken back. To cite an example from Wikipedia: Some decisions that have been made by a large number of editors (for example, the Wikipedia:Three-revert rule) would need a great number of the Wikipedia community to participate in a discussion to form a new consensus before it could be removed. This would not, however, apply to showing that there was a new consensus to altering the interpretation of a detail of the policy. In the first quarter of 2007, there appeared to be a consensus to combine several policies into a new one called Wikipedia:Attribution, which was duly promoted to the status of policy. However, when the issue was put to the larger Wikipedia community, . It's better to find the most appropriate page for discussing the topic, then ask there first and only. (This doesn't mean you can't take your proposal elsewhere if you're told you chose the wrong page for the topic.) Consensus in practice Consensus does not mean that everyone agrees with the outcome; instead, it means that everyone agrees to abide by the outcome. The following description of consensus, from the Wikipedia mailing list, argues a difference between consensus and unanimity: In fact WP's standard way of operating is a rather good illustration of what it does mean: a mixture across the community of those who are largely agreed, some who disagree but 'agree to disagree' without disaffection, those who don't agree but give low priority to the given issue, those who disagree strongly but concede that there is a community view and respect it on that level, some vocal and unreconciled folk, some who operate 'outside the law'. You find out whether you have consensus, if not unanimity, when you try to build on it. Note: In disputes, the term consensus is often used as if it means anything from genuine consensus to majority rule to my position; it is not uncommon to see both sides in an claiming a consensus for its version of the article. Consensus vs. supermajority While the most important part of consensus-building is to thoroughly discuss and consider all issues, it is often difficult for all members in a discussion to come to a single conclusion. To compensate for this, people first simply check if the criterion of is achieved, and on that basis make a first order assumption on how close one is to rough consensus. Formal decision making based on vote counting is not how the TerraDrive Universe works (see ) and simple vote-counting should never be the key part of the interpretation of a debate. When polling is used, it should be seen as a process of 'testing' for consensus, rather than reaching consensus. Nevertheless, some mediators of often-used Wikipedia-space processes have placed importance on the proportion of concurring editors reaching a particular level. This issue is controversial, and there is no consensus about having numerical guidelines. Exceptions There are a few exceptions that have superseded consensus decisions on a page. Primarily, declarations from Technomancer Press CEO Tony Hellmann, particularly for server load or legal issues (copyright, privacy rights, libel), are usually held to have policy status (see TDU:Policies and guidelines). Note on use of discussion page While the consensus process does not require posting to the discussion page, it can be useful. Edit summaries are short and can be misinterpreted. Discussing your edit may help it attract consensus. Posting a comment before editing is the best way to avoid misunderstandings. If you are unsure about an edit someone has made, wait a reasonable amount of time to allow them to post a comment. Also, when considering edits, be sure to check the discussion page to see if there are any open or closed discussions on the area you were about to edit. But once you have checked and contributed to the discussion, don't be too timid, BE BOLD. See also ;Articles * * *